Well, like it or not the dust has barely settled from the November midterms and the 2020 presidential race is already underway. Campaigns are being launched, names are being floated, “Gosh look what an ordinary person I am!” videos are being live streamed from politicians’ kitchens, and we are already seeing many of the same toxic patterns from 2016 resurfacing from many of the same toxic people.

NBC News has published an op-ed by Republican political strategist-turned Clinton advisor and Dem strategist David Brock titled “Bernie Sanders’ fans can’t be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks — Bashing Beto O’Rourke (and every other Democrat) doesn’t help liberals’ cause in 2020. It only helps Trump.” The article explicitly blames Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump on supporters of Bernie Sanders who criticized her during the primary, and makes it clear that such criticisms must be forcefully and aggressively fought against this time around.

“I’m hardly the only political observer who blames Hillary Clinton’s general election defeat to Donald Trump in part on personal attacks on Clinton first made by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and his backers,” Brock’s article begins. “Those attacks from her left laid the groundwork for copycat attacks lobbed by Donald Trump — and, in the process, helped hand the Supreme Court to the right-wing for a generation.”

Citing no evidence, Brock goes on to accuse journalists and social media users of staging a “coordinated effort” to “attack” Beto O’Rourke and other presidential hopefuls, as though coordination would be necessary for criticisms and questions to emerge about the voting records and campaign donations of public officials seeking the highest political office on the planet. The implication, of course, is that no criticisms of any kind should be leveled at Democratic presidential primary contestants, leaving narrative-shaping authority solely in the hands of the plutocratic media and beltway manipulators like David Brock.

Brock concludes his screed as follows:

In 2016, I ran a pro-Hillary SuperPAC which attempted to defend the candidate against false attacks, many of which came from or originated to her left. Though they were hardly in charge of our messaging, it was made very clear to us by our allies at her campaign headquarters that any efforts on our part to push back against the left-wing anti-Clinton brigades were unwelcome assistance; they feared alienating Sanders’ voters.

That head-in-the-sand posture was ultimately self-defeating.

Today, Democrats are rightly laser-focused on picking a winner in 2020, and the stakes are just too high to let bad faith actors — whose real aim is to smear Democrats as no different than Republicans — stage inter-party schisms. If Sanders decides to run again this time, he should focus on policy and eschew character attacks on Democrats — and admonish his supporters to do the same. Otherwise, they put the core values we all share at risk, yet again.

It is unclear what “character attacks” Brock is claiming Sanders made; the entirety of criticisms leveled by Sanders and the overwhelming majority of his supporters were directed at the policy decisions Clinton made in her political career and the shady places she took money from. What is clear is that the pro-Hillary SuperPAC he is referring to was the infamous “Correct the Record” troll operation, which employed literal shills to deceitfully pose as grassroots Hillary supporters online whose job was to attack anyone who criticized her. This despicable tactic was incalculably disruptive to online political discourse in 2016, and Brock clearly wants to implement a far more aggressive version of his operation in the 2020 primaries.

Let’s be clear about what’s going on here: this is a deliberate Dem Party effort to try to intimidate journalists & advocacy groups into not reporting on voting records & campaign donations. Wanna know why I rejected working for this guy? That’s why. https://t.co/vFl0fps6sB

“Let’s be clear about what’s going on here: this is a deliberate Dem Party effort to try to intimidate journalists and advocacy groups into not reporting on voting records and campaign donations,” tweeted progressive investigative journalist David Sirota in response to Brock’s article, adding, “Wanna know why I rejected working for this guy? That’s why.” Sirota had agreed to work with Brock on a new outlet billed as “The left’s answer to Breitbart” in early 2017, but later backed out of the project. Brock’s liberal Breitbart never materialized.

If you want a quality illustration of what a manipulative sociopath David Brock is, contrast his obnoxious, dishonest accusatory screed with his open letter to Sanders at the beginning of 2017 titled “Dear Senator Sanders: I’m with You in the Fight Ahead”. Brock apologized for his harsh attacks on Sanders, gushed about the way Bernie “electrified millions” with his campaign and pledged to work with him to harness that energy against Trump. Brock wanted something from Sanders (control of his base in this case), so he smothered him in flattery; now people are criticizing Beto “Like Obama, only white” O’Rourke, and all of a sudden Sanders is back to being a red commie menace whose “character attacks” are to blame for Hillary Clinton’s loss. Brock has no relationship with truth beyond his ability to twist it to get things he wants.

Hillary Clinton is to blame for Hillary Clinton’s loss, actually, as well as the strategists like David Brock who were behind her spectacular failure to defeat a historically unpopular reality TV star Republican. Establishment Democrats are trying to sell the narrative that “You progressives disobeyed us in 2016 and what happened was your fault; you will obey us this time,” while progressives are saying “No, you ignored us in 2016 and what happened was your fault; you will listen to us this time.” The early 2020 presidential race is repeating the same battle of official narrative manufactured by corporate elites versus the organic zeitgeist–the way ordinary people are feeling inside as a result of the conditions their government has put them in. I’m not sure how much coverage I’ll be giving to the US presidential election this time around, but it will be interesting to see how this dynamic plays out.

Share

Latest comments

Sheila Chambers/January 8, 2019

I for one have had it with those FAKE ELECTIONS!

How many times will we have to “choose” between EVILS? Why do people continue to support & even VOTE for these DAM WAR CRIMINALS?

For decades, I have watched as the “two” parties present their “platforms” platforms that mean NOTHING as once they are SELECTED by TPTB, it will be the same CRAP, endless wars, tax breaks for the disgustingly RICH & BIG CORPORATIONS, continued raping of OUR LANDS, open borders for illegal migrants to drop “anchor babies” that will become instant “citizens”, protection of illegal immigrants who are given our jobs, free trade that only benifits the rich etc etc etc! Once again the dems will bring out health care for all but still tied to the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT insurance companies so it’s still NOT “affordable” & health CARE still isn’t for “all”, environmental protection laws with no teeth, more jobs that pay a poverty wage & the continuation of our illegal, immoral, unjust dam WARS!

Forget the “vote” it’s WORTHLESS!

They might give us a few crumbs like state legal cannabis but it’s still a FEDERAL FELONY so just having it state legal means NOTHING HAS CHANGED!

Bernie does what he’s told because he is a pedophile. That’s why he was photographed at Voodoo Donuts, the pedo palace with the child coffins. It’s our addiction to ideology that prevents us from seeing the truth. *Queer Theory Pedophilia Jeopardy w/ Derrick Jenson* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u3hmZCsXoE

Stephen Sadd/January 5, 2019

David Brock is another whoring war grub pissing in the pockets of Hillary and the other Global scum bags! Apparently this little pierce of shit didn’t get the message about “Lying Hillary”. What low life animals they are, I wouldn’t waste my piss on either if they were on fire!

Orlando J. Valerino/January 5, 2019

“Bernie Sanders is this election’s Democratic sheepdog. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic party plays every presidential primary season when there’s no White House Democrat running for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the left of the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination. Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home or trying to build something outside the two party box.

1984 and 88 the sheepdog candidate was Jesse Jackson. In 92 it was California governor Jerry Brown. In 2000 and 2004 the designated sheepdog was Al Sharpton, and in 2008 it was Dennis Kucinich. This year it’s Vermont senator Bernie Sanders. The function of the sheepdog candidate is to give left activists and voters a reason, however illusory, to believe there’s a place of influence for them inside the Democratic party, if and only if the eventual Democratic nominee can win in November.”https://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary

Michael Bukakis/January 6, 2019

SteveK9/January 5, 2019

‘historically unpopular reality TV star Republican’

It’s easy to cut and paste this, but it’s hardly accurate. First, Trump is stupid. But, he is mainly known as a real-estate developer. Something he did for decades before the ‘Apprentice’ ever appeared. If you grew up in or near NYC, Trump was a widely known public figure. And, he had been active politically for decades as well (birther nonsense, as well as things less stupid). So, he was hardly a ‘reality star’ that popped up from nowhere. For God’s sake the guy was 70 years old when he was elected.

Hillary was not just stupid, she was on the absolute wrong side of the political stream … a Democrat that takes millions in bribes from Wall Street. She had more in common with the worst of the old Republican party than anything else, covered up with some identity politics BS, which many Democrats swallowed.

Orlando J. Valerino/January 5, 2019

Harry S Nydick/January 5, 2019

“The implication, of course, is that no criticisms of any kind should be leveled at Democratic presidential primary contestants.” Of course, he somehow forgets that The Clinton faction was not only always criticizing Sanders, but that they rigged the primary season against him, in many cases through law-breaking on the part of state Democratic parties. Odd, isn’t it, that under a Republican majority, there have been no prosecution of individuals who engaged in those crimes. Does it not suggest the possibility of collusion between the two major parties?

Rob/January 4, 2019

Just reading the comments section of this article makes me want to find a cave to hide in until the 2020 elections are over. The purity police are at it again, insisting on strict adherence to ideological principles and a flaunting a willingness to accept the greater of two evils candidate regardless of the consequences for real people, who just want their lives to be made a little more tolerable and don’t give a crap about ideology. If Bernie must compromise in order to function in the existing political system, then that is what he should do.

It should be pointed out that there has been a sizable leftward shift in the sentiments of the Democratic Party base, and Bernie deserves a good part of the credit for that shift. It was he who brought Medicare for all, free college tuition and forgiveness of student debt into the realm of acceptable public discourse. The Dem Party establishment had always considered such policies out of bounds. Well, not anymore, as those policies have been shown to have broad popularity amongst Democrats and the general voting population.

So, I say let the purists fulminate and vote for whichever candidate makes them feel better about themselves. They are largely irrelevant.

inforebelscum/January 4, 2019

Zach Reid/January 5, 2019

“Purity police” Oh jeez. Don’t you want to throw something n there about people not voting for the lesser evil are showing their “priviledge”, and some screed about “we must save the country from Trump/’whatever GOP candidate”. and a few other neoliberal dog whistles?

The democrartic party base hasn’t shifted to the left — that’s a false narrative pushed by the same mainstream media who help normalize war criminals like GW Bush with his cutesy luvbunny exchanges with Michelle. But the purity police are holding him accounatbel for his lethal imperialism, those meanies!

Rationalizing imperialism can work because enough people accept that a corrupt two-party (really one party) system is normal. Stop it!!

Rob/January 5, 2019

I am well aware that Bernie is not perfect, but then who is? He just happens to be the furthest left candidate who would have a chance in hell of winning a presidential election. The alternative, realistically speaking, is a president who is to Bernie’s right. Evidently, that prospect bothers you less than voting for the better, though not ideal, candidate. Of course, in your tiny mind, there are no shades of gray, only black and white, good and bad. Have fun voting for a sure loser. No doubt, you will sleep better at night as the country sinks further into a right wing nightmare.

wake up, it’s worse than you think/January 4, 2019

When are Bernie admirers going to wake up and realize that Bernie is the dog that doesn’t bark?

And don’t look just at acts of omission (like failing to join the lawsuit against the DNC for fraudulently rigging their primary and thus robbing one-time naive Bernie donators like myself). Look at the national “goodwill tour” he embarked on after the 2016 “election”. If he was not playing along in the kayfabe, why would he go out of his way to help resuscitate the political machine that robbed him and his supporters and gave the election to Trump?

WillD/January 4, 2019

wapiti/January 4, 2019

Genuine progressive? Sanders was a pawn paid for and silenced by the Clinton mafia. He was willingly set up to run against the witch knowing and agreeing to losing. He got a fine lake front mansion paid for by us taxpayers in exchange for agreeing to lose. He is sickening. I wanted to believe him, tried to believe in him but ultimately accepted the fact that he is more of the same polished bullshit politician. I voted for trump. And still do not regret my decsison.

Gene Poole/January 4, 2019

Ray Raven/January 4, 2019

Wapiti’s assessment is correct. Bernie shmeared (sic) himself – doesn’t need anyone else to shmear (sic) him. And I didn’t vote – ‘coz thankfully I ain’t a yank – nor have an interest in being one (I’m not deluded or delusional in thinking that I or the country I live in is ‘eceptional or indispensible).

Old Joe/January 4, 2019

I love it when they just come out and say directly that they hate democracy.

Basically he’s saying, “We hate you. We hate that you even think you might have a voice in what happens in your country We hate democracy and everything that America was founded to represent. Just sit down and shut up and give us your vote because we own your vote. Your vote is our slave, its on our chain, and we yank it anytime we feel like it. Remember, we the Democrats were the pro-slavery party, and now its your vote we have in our chains. You have to vote for anyone selected by the corporations, and you’d better like it.”

Anne Stephenson/January 4, 2019

In 2016; I canvassed for Senator Sanders, did without a percentage of groceries and risked getting my electricity turned off to continue donating to his campaign; and fought brock’s “Correct teh record” trolls online.

Time and further info proved that Senator Sanders was/is a sheepdog for the DNC, unfortunately. It is quite likely that the drama from Brock is a way to get people to feel protective of/re-aligned with Sanders. It certainly siphons attention away from needed focus on 3rd parties and breaking the duopoly.

Maxim Gorki/January 4, 2019

inforebelscum/January 4, 2019

Max, bingfuckno! If one votes for a candidate, left or right, one is freely giving their permission to the politician to act in their, the voter’s, name. Whatever blood is on the politician’s hands is also on the hands of the voters who gave him/her the authority to act in their name. This is why I do not vote, to keep my hands clean.

David Chard/January 4, 2019

The 2016 campaign, true to the 2-party system, gave us a choice between Cancer and Syphilis. So I voted for a candidate I could truly support, Jill Stein, even though she had no hope of winning. But in the primary I voted for Bernie Sanders…only to watch as the DNC machine threw him under the bus. My head was still spinning when Sanders then got behind Hillary and did what we could to herd the Progressives into the slaughter, as only a Judas Goat could. As such, I don’t trust Bernie one bit. His ‘independent’ status is very questionable to those of us who are aware of his record…he morphs into a Democrat whenever it suits the powers that be. Why should we expect that the DNC would actually let him win this time around? I’ve concluded that the only way to make real change is by changing the system, not just the faces. So, I’m going to vote Green again, for better or for worse.

Anne Stephenson/January 4, 2019

Old Joe/January 4, 2019

Bernie was quite clear from the very beginning of his campaign about what he was doing. He pledged early on (to please the corporate Democrats like Brock here) that he would support Hillary when Hillary won the nomination. He gave the standard weak, lefty-Dem spiel about ‘making our voices heard’ as the reason he was running, and swore he was a loyal Democrat through and through and that he would support Hillary. ————— Given that I knew the Dems are corrupt before 2016, and that statement, I didn’t take Bernie very seriously. He wasn’t going to win and he was going to back Hillary in the end. —————- I did join the Democrats just long enough to caucus for Bernie. I was constantly looking to the heavens for the lightening bolts that would strike me down for joining a party that openly says it is evil, but only claims to be slightly less evil than the devil. But, no lightening bolts came. ——– In the fall, I could not vote for Hillary. I felt going in that this time the Democrat candidate was indeed the Greatest Evil. They had surpassed Satan herself. Hillary was openly promising war. She was promising a no-fly zone in Syria, an act that the joint chiefs had said would start a war. And it sure sounded like that Hillary would start a nuclear war with Russia if elected. She was certainly willing to trash important relations with a nuclear power for her own greedy personal power play when she blamed the Russians on what was leaked by an obviously young and naive DNC staffer who actually believes in democracy. —— I’d voted for Cynthia McKinney and Jill Stein in the past elections. But this time I was in a battleground state and Hillary had to be stopped. So, I voted for Trump. Again, no lightening bolts from heaven. And if we make it to 2020 without a nuclear war that destroys human civilization then I’ll still say I was right because I sure as heck believed that Hillary would kill us all.

Gene Poole/January 4, 2019

What is the prospect going into the Iowa caucus on February 3, 2020 (13 months ahead)? Progressives like Sanders and Warren will be accused of having rigid and ideological litmus-tests on big money donations, stopping perpetual war, Medicare-for-all, green new deal, $15 minimum wage, free college tuition, etc, and not having any regard for healing the Democratic Party so that it can defeat Trump. A majority of Iowans will likely be convinced to support an “electable” candidate such as Biden, O’Rourke, Clinton, Bloomberg, or Steyer. But there will be a wrinkle in that absentee ballots in California’s primary will start to be counted on the same date, so the sound bites at that time should not all be from one state.

wapiti/January 4, 2019

Philip Mollica/January 4, 2019

Nothing has changed. The DNC was just acquitted of the “Montreal Screwjob” in the Primary, with the judge rightfully noting that they had every right to do so. Why? Because they’re a Private Corporation and are not subject to any obligation to voters. The Super-delegates are appointed and have no legal obligation to vote as their constituency thinks they’re directing them to.

And now, we have Pelosi’s first act is to try to ram through Paygo – she might as well be a fucking Republican. See the excellent Truthdig article about the “Two Santa Claus Con”, relating to the institution of Supply-Side Economics. Paygo is handing the baton back to the Republicans. Pelosi is useless to a Progressive. I don’t know how she managed to eek out the Speaker role.

And HRC – she just doesn’t get that people have her number and had it. She fooled no-one but the Trump Fearful. Those same folks are so focused on beating Trump now, Not On Policy, that they are a danger to anyone wishing to move the Dems to the new platform. Hillary needs to just go away and stfu.

So, fuck the Democrats. I hope Bernie/Gabbard runs as an independent. I think we would see history made.

wapiti/January 4, 2019

Ms. Plastic Face Pelosi stays in her power role because of the money she can pull into her party through her slimy tentacles. Google it. Ms. Botox is a frightening, has-been cliche of the female gender.

Rocketman/January 4, 2019

There is a MAJOR schism going on in the democrat party between what I call the “old (and highly corrupt) guard” and the new “progressives” like that Cortez woman from the Bronx. The Old Guard sees that they are losing control and are trying to co-op the Progressives by paying them lip service while still conducting business as usual. It isn’t working. What they’re warning the Progressives not to do is what they are planning to do to the Progressives themselves. In the end I expect that the Progressives to win simply by living longer than the Old Guard, many of whom are in the 60’s, 70’s and even 80’s and at that point they will be indistinguishable from the Communist Party USA.

Julie Tabler/January 4, 2019

“What is clear is that the pro-Hillary SuperPAC he is referring to was the infamous “Correct the Record” troll operation, which employed literal shills to deceitfully pose as grassroots Hillary supporters online whose job was to attack anyone who criticized her. This despicable tactic was incalculably disruptive to online political discourse in 2016, ”

1) Accuse the enemy of exactly what you are doing. 2) No sh*t, it was disruptive. My Conservadem friends went on and on insulting any progressive not in the HRC cult. And they were immune to any and all facts about primary rigging. They lost my respect completely.

Hyper-partisans are a shining example of faith-based politics. Never question the party. Hyper-partisans have a faith-based approach to politics. Including the “liberals”.

Gino/January 4, 2019

Katy Meigs/January 4, 2019

Julie Tabler/January 4, 2019

“What is clear is that the pro-Hillary SuperPAC he is referring to was the infamous “Correct the Record” troll operation, which employed literal shills to deceitfully pose as grassroots Hillary supporters online whose job was to attack anyone who criticized her. This despicable tactic was incalculably disruptive to online political discourse in 2016, ”

1) Accuse the enemy of exactly what you are doing. 2) No sh*t, it was disruptive. My Conservadem friends went on and on insulting any progressive not in the HRC cult. And they were immune to any and all facts about primary rigging. They lost my respect completely. Hyper-partisans have a faith-based approach to politics. Including the “liberals”.

JP McEvoy/January 4, 2019

Oakey Pruett/January 4, 2019

I’ve thought a great idea would be a “yellow vest” assault on the DNC; not just the headquarters but the offices and abodes of its elected officials, and every other member no matter who or where. Who the hell do they think they are?

Joseph Mirzoeff/January 4, 2019

We obviously need a third party, or for progressive Democrats to join the Green Party. My other advice to the Democrats is LOCK HER UP!!! and Comey and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and many others, clean house of the worst criminals. Then go working on the Bush crime family criminals (which includes Comey, Mueller, and Cheney among others…

Old Joe/January 4, 2019

The Green Party is run by Democrat collaborators. Start something new and fresh.

Notice that one of the things that made the Yellow Vest protests work in France is that they stayed clear from the fake leftist politicians and they stayed clear of the corporate-servant unions.

Starting something new and yet un-corrupted has its benefits.

And, somebody please find 500 people to run for Congress on the same platform. If not, a President Sanders would be in the exact position Trump is in with only a minority caucus of supporters backing the President. All the Republicans of course hate Sanders, and the corporate Dems would also not really want to work with him. The corporate Dems would impose another PayGo and would fight any money being moved from the War, Death, Destruction, Torture and Spying budget. In such a situation, a President Sanders would be powerless. So,, please, find 500 people to run for Congress in 2020.

JM/January 4, 2019

I think we need to move away from party politics entirely. Any party can become corrupted — parties are used by the rich and powerful to shunt people into specifically designed camps that are set up to push certain (capitalist/globalist) economic agendas. They use emotionally-charged issues to manipulate people into voting against their own interests; in the U.S., both parties do this equally. ……………….

Parties facilitate corruption because it’s easier to control a handful of political parties than it is to control thousands of independent politicians across the country. Parties are also used to dumb-down the populace because people are manipulated to vote for or against political parties instead of voting for/against individual people or issues. People are encouraged to become apathetic and ignorant as a result — they feel no need to study the history or positions of candidates or issues, they just “check the right box” based on what a political party tells them to do.

——————————-

What we need is a totally new political and electoral system. We have the technology to give all candidates (and voters) an online questionnaire that can prioritize issues and tell voters which candidates support the issues that matter most to them — and each candidate (or issue) would have a publicly-sponsored webpage linked with their name and voting/action history, along with a one-page bio and information piece where they can sell themselves based on their past actions and ideas for the future. We could then use a type of ranked-choice voting system where the first person to get 70% of the people’s top three votes would win the election (if nobody gets 70% of the first-choice pick in the first round, they would add in the second-choice candidates, and if nobody got to 70% of the first and second-choice candidates, then they could open it up to the third, etc.) — we could continue adding to a predetermined 1st/2nd/3rd/4th/5th-choice slot until a candidate/issue reaches a certain approval percentage. That way, nobody would feel compelled to vote against a particular politician, and the winner would be someone that is at least palatable to the great majority. This could be used in a primary to narrow down the candidates, and then open up a series of publicly-sponsored debates, with a second round of voting in this ranked-choice style where the final winner would be chosen (again with a majority of the voters approval). This is just one idea, but it would be many times better than what we’re dealing with now, IMO.

Gene Poole/January 4, 2019

Why have candidates at all? Why not use the technology to create a political system where there is no concentration of power? The concentration of power is the root problem. Power needs to remain diffuse, and the Internet is a diffuse medium.

inforebelscum/January 4, 2019

JM/January 5, 2019

Agreed, Gene Poole; that would be the ideal. Of course, the Constitution would be used to block that — and my idea as well — but direct democracy should be the long-term goal. I’m just thinking of something that might be a bit easier to implement in the near term. ————

Arby is also correct to point out that people need to fully educate themselves regarding all of these issues. Based on my experience with people in the “real world,” we are a long way from that goal.

Electoral politics is a trap for many reasons. But people will still try to use them.

MOST important, to my mind, is simple education. I’m not talking, of course, about corporate media offerings. People don’t read. Buy books people. Read them aggressively – marking them up, using them in discussions online, and consider blogging (You don’t have to be an expert) – and keep them. You can buy books cheap online and in second hand bookstores. Read around online. Don’t get stuck on one website. Why would you? And DO NOT do hero worship.

Tweets

Here's an Israeli government official calling Michelle Alexander's column in the NYT about Palestinian rights, based on MLK's philosophy, a "strategic threat," and warns that Israel will "treat it as such." How will Israel treat Alexander's column as a "strategic threat"? Creepy

Facebook feed

"NewsGuard is led by some of the most virulently pro-imperialist individuals in America and its agenda to shore up narrative control for the ruling power establishment is clear, writes Caitlin Johnstone."

NewsGuard is led by some of the most virulently pro-imperialist individuals in America and its agenda to shore up narrative control for the ruling power establishment is clear, writes Caitlin Johnstone. By Caitlin Johnstone CaitlinJohnstone.com The frenzied, hysterical Russia narrative being prom ... See more

Excerpt from "Fight The Establishment’s Narratives By Getting Clear On Your Own":

Anti-establishment movements are a mess. Whether they’re left-wing or right-wing, whether they’re statist or anarchist, whether they’re organized or decentralized, whether they place emphasis on official or unofficial narratives, any circle of people who are interested in opposing the status quo on a deep, meaningful level almost invariably find themselves significantly bogged down by confusion, paranoia, infighting, and misdirected use of energy.

Every day, for example, I get people in my inbox and social media notifications telling me I shouldn’t quote or share anything from this or that lefty journalist or anti-establishment figure because they’ve said something “problematic” at some point or have some kind of association with some aspect of the establishment. Rather than simply using narrative-disrupting tools wherever they come from to fight the establishment narrative control machine, I’m encouraged to isolate myself to the extremely narrow spectrum of voices which agree with my exact worldview perfectly. This kind of paranoid, self-cannibalizing mentality is rife throughout most anti-establishment circles.

This happens for a number of reasons, including the fact that the ruling power establishment will infiltrate dissident movements that it perceives as a threat with the intent of sowing confusion and division. But the underlying reason anti-establishment circles so often find themselves getting crushed by their own weight is ultimately because life itself is confusing and difficult to understand.

Hardly anyone holds a lucid and steady awareness of just how much of society is comprised of mental narrative. Most people live their lives under the unquestioned assumption that when they are moving around in the world, speaking, acting, forming opinions, having ideas etc, they are interacting with something that resembles objective reality. The truth of the matter is that most of the things which draw people’s attention in their day-to-day experience, whether it’s names, titles, news stories, political parties, economics, history, philosophy, religion or what have you, consist entirely of mental noises firing off inside human skulls.

Excerpt from "Fight The Establishment’s Narratives By Getting Clear On Your Own":

You might think it’s a big jump to go from chatting about the sociopolitical dynamics within dissident movements to making vaguely Buddhist-sounding observations about human thought, but it’s really not. The reason our species is in a mess right now, and thus the reason movements exist which seek to change the status quo, is because so much of life is dictated entirely by made-up mental narratives which can be easily controlled by the powerful, and hardly anyone fully grasps this. If they did, the revolution against the establishment would very smoothly and quickly succeed.

Scientific research has found that astronauts suffer problems with coordination, perception and cognition when they are unable to determine which way is up in space. There is no “up” or “down” when you’re outside the gravitational pull that our bodies are adapted to, so its absence sends our whole system out of whack. Navigating a society that is made of mental narrative is very much the same; if you don’t know which way’s up, you’ll get lost and confused. Before you can see the narrative matrix clearly, you might be aware that some narratives serve power and swat at them while you’re spinning through space, but you won’t have any solid ground on which to orient yourself for the purpose of forming a clear path forward toward a healthy and harmonious world.

Your first and foremost task as a revolutionary, therefore, is to find solid ground on which to plant your feet while operating within a swirling sea of narratives and counter-narratives. Without this you’ll find yourself expending energy on ineffectual agendas, chasing shadows, attacking friends and advancing the interests of the enemy as you stumble around trying to fight a threat you can’t even see clearly. You’ve got to figure out for yourself which way’s up.